Guardian

Will the Guardian update their report on Ziad Abu Ein to note he died of a heart attack?


As we noted yesterday, the Guardian published a report (and video) on the death of Palestinian minister Ziad Abu Ein, who died shortly after a brief confrontation with IDF soldiers during a protest north of Ramallah, which all but ignored substantive evidence corroborating Israeli claims that Abu Ein likely died of a heart attack, not as the result of trauma.

ziad-abu-ein-The report, by Peter Beaumont, almost entirely focused (and lent substantial credibility to) Palestinian claims that he died as the result of a strike – alternately explained as either a punch, kick or gun butt to the head, or by the impact of a tear gas canister – administered by an Israeli soldier.  

Well, about 30 minutes ago it was reported that a joint Israeli-Palestinian autopsy of Abu Ein – a former terrorist convicted of planting a bomb that killed two Israeli teens in the late 70s – concluded that he indeed died from a stress-induced heart attack.

the report, being led by Palestinian, Jordanian and Israeli pathologists, said the death was caused by blockage in the coronary artery, and there were signs of light internal bleeding and localized pressure on the neck.

The deceased suffered from heart disease, and there was evidence that plaque buildup were clogging more than 80% of his blood vessels, as well as signs that he had suffered heart attacks in the past.

Now, we’ll wait and see if the Guardian will update their coverage to note that Israeli claims – at this point – clearly seem to be vindicated.

73 replies »

  1. If he WAS struck it could be argued this brought it on.

    Of course and regardless one still expects accuracy and full disclosure in the press, rather than the usual tedious partisan reports masquerading as neutral reports.

    Anwyay, I just want to be clear on the facts. Was he struck?

    • It’s unknown if he was struck. Some people who attended the event claim they heard from eyewitnesses that he was accidentally struck by a rifle butt, and not forcefully, but no eye witness has actually come forward.

      • Everybody is using smartphones now to record these events. If there is no video evidence, it didn’t happen. It’s just PA spin.

    • It appears he was pushed after getting to close to two border police men. One of them grabbed him by the front of his coat near the neck while the other pushed his chest away.
      This is a natural reaction of every human being who is having his personal space invaded in such a way.
      When the police tells you to move on and you try to get closer in their face do not cry when you are pushed away or arrested.

  2. A new article just out by Peter Beaumont, and, wouldn’t you know it, the Guardian is repeating the lie:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/palestinian-minister-ziad-abu-ein-buried-ramallah

    “Following a joint autopsy, the Palestinian doctor concluded that he died as a result of a blow to his body, not of natural causes. The Israeli doctor said the 55-year-old’s death was caused by the blockage of a coronary artery.”

    Which is simply false. There was not one “Palestinian doctor” but several, and most concurred with the Israeli that the cause was a heart attack, which MAY have been related to a blockage of a coronary artery in the neck.

    Simply false reporting! What a fu@#ing surprise!

  3. I will change my CifWatch username to anything nominated by the first person who can send me a link that verifies that Abbas apologises for calling this a “barbaric assassination” of Ein.

  4. The New York Time’s report under the headline ‘Doctors Offer Contradictory Interpretations of Palestinian Official’s Death’ is clearer on the two different interpretations of the autopsy:

    “The Israeli pathologists concluded that Ziad Abu Ein, 55, had died of a heart attack that could have been caused by stress. A statement on the preliminary autopsy report issued by the Israeli Health Ministry noted that Mr. Abu Ein might have been more susceptible to stress because he had heart disease.

    The Palestinian forensic expert, Dr. Saber al-Aloul, told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah that Mr. Abu Ein had died as a result of violence and not from natural causes, according to Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

    While the two sides agreed that Mr. Abu Ein suffered a blockage of the coronary artery because of hemorrhaging in the inner lining of the heart that was likely the result of stress, Dr. Aloul emphasized wounds to Mr. Abu Ein’s front teeth and bruises on the tongue, neck and windpipe.”

    While the Guardian leaves it at one paragraph: “Following a joint autopsy, the Palestinian doctor concluded that he died as a result of a blow to his body, not of natural causes. The Israeli doctor said the 55-year-old’s death was caused by the blockage of a coronary artery”

    The facts are there but I can see how those who are overly sensitive to anti Israeli reports would be displeased with the lack of a pro-Israeli stance in the Guardian’s handling of this story and indeed would might feel that even the NYT gave too much credence to the Palestinian take on the events.

    • Is this the same NYT that quoted Hamas sources for all its death counts during the Gaza War? That would make it the same NYT that immediately blamed Israel for blowing up UN schools and hospitals even though Hamas may very have done that themselves. And it’s the exact same NYT that obsessed over the Jews of Sderot celebrating war while simultaneously not reporting or covering or even chit-chatting about how Sderot had been the target of bombings over the past decade.

      Yes, Dinkleberry, everything you touch seeking validation on our behalf, turns you to shit.

    • Dinkle:

      “The facts are there but I can see how those who are overly sensitive to anti Israeli reports would be displeased with the lack of a pro-Israeli stance…”

      Pro Israel stance?
      How about truthful stance?
      Abbas and the PA publically stated Israel is at fault and that a crime was commited even before the autopcy!
      The PA foreign minister called it a murder (as you know full well!) while Hanan Ashrawi hinted at it being a assasination.

      The fact of the matter is that most Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian agreed that there was no intentioal foul play.
      If anything the minister trying to clash with the soldiers in his condition was his own downfall.
      You have to be suicidle or stupid to do such a thing.
      He happened to be both.
      Karme came back to bite him on his arse!
      The only regret Israelis should have about this is that it was 30 years too late.

      • @ItsikDeWembley (and other more reasonable contributors on this blog)

        You may have noticed that my angle is *not* whether Israel or Palestine or Abbas or Netanyahu are “right” or “wrong” in anything they say or do. My angle in here is to examine whether the accusations of bias or indeed anti-Semitism by the press (esp the mainstream British press) are warranted or fair.

        Of course in examining this I can be drawn into the “wrong” or “right” of the actions on the ground, but in the main I want to see if Adam is being fair in his take on the reporting, not on what is being reported. I am sorry if some take this as an attack on Israel or somehow anti Semitic, but it is neither. It is putting the other side of what Adam sees as bias in the reporting.

        My own take on this episode (though all the facts are to be released/discovered) is that Ziad Abu Ein was a very sick man (medically) and the altercation caused a coronary episode which then led to his death. I do not think the IDF/Boarder guards acted unlawfully or illegally. I believe they should be exonerated in any inquest. I also hope that better training is deployed in future for such events.

        I also think the mainstream press handled it pretty well. They stuck to the facts and did not apportion blame. I think the Guardian relied a little too heavily on quotes from Palestinians but these were never served as editorial, rather quotes. I fear however that for many that giving the Palestinian side fair representation is deplorable and any report that does so is tantamount to anti Israel propaganda. It is not; it’s being fair

        • Dinkle,
          I hear what you are saying but in this particular incident and the coverage of it that indeed displayed specific coverage of PA statements this could be seen as incitement or semi agreement.
          What the Guardian should have done was write a major article or an op-ed with a big headline posing a question:
          “Why are Palestinian and Arab figure heads and ministers point the finger of blames at Israel regardless of the facts?”
          In this op-ed they should show countless examples where such incidents caused damage to the Palestinians themselves and created further deaths to all involved and in the EU itself.

          Let me pose a question to you.
          Why did the guardian chose to start the report with a clearly biased “eye whitnes”?
          Why did it not start the report with the words of the Israeli spokes person?

          Google up how many articles display the Palestinian opinions prior to the Israeli ones in that paper and you should find a pattern.
          I believe this is something you need to examine.

          • I hear what you say ItsikDeWembley. I will Google those articles and see how many times the Palestinian quite/statement is mentioned first inappropriately. In general, and good reporting practise is, that the parties that suffered should be quoted first to get their view of what happened. So a rocket attack on Israel should have quotes from those on the ground and the government first, so we get a better picture of what the impact was and how the sufferers view it. This is not bias but just building up a better picture of the news item – in this example “Israel struck by rockets from Gaza”

            In this particular incident the News was that a Palestinian minister died after a confrontation. I would say it is fair that the Palestinian in this instance is quoted first, with other views taken after. Equal weight should be given but this is a news item, it is not and editorial nor is it a opinion piece. So as such it should remain disinterested.

            As for your suggestion of a op/ed piece “Why are Palestinian and Arab figure heads and ministers point the finger of blames at Israel regardless of the facts?” – good idea and I’d like to see it. But that is not a news piece and it is something that can not be written up hours after a specific news item.

            • Dinkle:
              “In general, and good reporting practise is, that the parties that suffered should be quoted first to get their view of what happened.”

              So let me get this straight, when we read reporting, and we do, from families of the gunned down terrorist (like the one driving over the Israeli passenger last month or those thrown with acid today) we suppose to understand that he or she are the victims right?

              As for the minister;
              That minister and the crowd around him pushed their way onto the small police force entering violently into the officer’s personal space.
              It is without a shadow of a doubt that the officer’s should be the victims here for having being approached in such an aggresive way by a crowd, and forcing them to push back.
              The “tragic” result in which the Ex killer (turned minister) died is nothing but his own doing.
              Following the Guardian for several years now it is with out a shadow of a doubt that they push an Anti Zionist, if not Anti Israeli, agenda.
              The reason is probably sales through it’s online paper.
              They gambled that because the Jewish and pro Israeli crowds world wide are in a vast minority while the Pro Palestinian is in a vast majority they should opt to represent the latter in most cases while muting the rest of the ME to a minimal.

              The result is bias reporting tied up to sales.
              This, my friend, is not nutural reporting but a biased one.
              End of story.

              • -” It is without a shadow of a doubt that the officer’s should be the victims here for having being approached in such an aggresive way by a crowd, and forcing them to push back”.
                Sorry, you are wrong. The story was very much that a minister dies after a confrontation. Protesters approaching security/defence forces is a non story anywhere in the world, unless it grows into something else. It would be weirdly bizarre to have the lead on that story as “Minister aggressively approaches boarder guard” with the fact that he died after a confrontation relegated to subsequent paragraphs.

                “So let me get this straight, when we read reporting, and we do, from families of the gunned down terrorist (like the one driving over the Israeli passenger last month or those thrown with acid today) we suppose to understand that he or she are the victims right?”

                Not right. Its is obvious that driven-over-passenger or the acid attacks victim are the sufferer and the story. That there were subsequent causalities (eg the perpetrators gunned down) must be mentioned but only in subordination to the main story.

                PS I’d like to see evidence that biased coverage of Israel drives up sales of papers.

        • “..but in the main I want to see if Adam is being fair in his take on the reporting, not on what is being reported”

          How very interesting.
          Who appointed, or asked, you to carry out such a role?
          If it is of such concern to you have you ever thought of starting your own blog, rather than acting as the self-appointed and self-important conscience of this site, which has well defined objectives at the top of this page.

          • “Who appointed, or asked, you to carry out such a role?”

            Another conspiracy theorist? If so, hopefully this one is not a bigot as well.

            • Would you answer the question?
              Or do you just want to repeat your same juvenile insults about ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘bigots’?

              • Interestingly when caught lying he immediately accuses everybody of conspiracy. End of his subtlenesss.

                • Your eagerness to maintaiin that Al Guardian`s incitement against Israel is a fair and objective reporting will certainly earn you some special badges of ‘honour’, maybe a freebie at CIF, but not here, antisemite.

              • I honestly thought it was a rhetorical question. I can see now it is a stupid (though genuine) question. To answer: this is a blog that is freely available to all to make a comment. Its called free speech. I’m exercising my right to free speech.

                • That is not an answer to the questions put to you.

                  Your use of juvenile insults and phrases, e.g. ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘bigot’, and ‘stupid question’ is either an attempt to conceal the shallowness of your own argument by using phrases and insults you have read elsewhere, or an attempt to close down debate and not answer questions put to you.
                  It does not work in either case.

                  Would you now answer the questions put to you?

                • @gerald (I don’t see a reply button by your last comment)
                  Who appointed Adam to be the monitor of the press (esp the Guardian)? He can do so if he wants to its a free country (here). He does not need anyone to appoint him; he can do it if he feels it is necessary and I’d support his right to do so. And thats my position too.

                  While we are on name calling. I think its a bit rich to criticise me when I’m being called in this forum: anti-Semitic. low IQ, small penis’d (if thats a word) and stupid simply for (what I consider) putting the other side of the argument with regard to newspaper coverage…. Not Israel’s legitimacy (which I support), Not pro Palestine (which I’m not) not anything except seeing that fairness in how the Guardian (and others) are portrayed here.

                • So your answer to everything is that someone else is doing it so why shouldn’t you?

                  As an argument that is;
                  Not logical
                  Not intelligent.
                  Not mature.
                  And, by the way, Not correct.
                  Adam did not appoint himself.

                  Perhaps if you attempted to find out the purpose of this site and its history of how it came to be formed, before making incorrect statements and assumptions others on this site might not have felt it necessary to point out your shortcomings to you.

                • @ Gerald.

                  It you are going to wilfully misunderstand what I’m saying, what’s the point in discussion?

                  I never said I’m doing it because ‘everyone else is’. I am doing it because think, in the name of fairness, a balanced analysis of the articles is what is needed here. And we all have a right to free speech.

                  I have looked into the background of this site and it is interesting and laudable but IMO not an excuse for biased or inaccurate analysis of particular articles.

                  How others might form the opinion that one of my shortcomings is that I am short of penis based on my writings is symptomatic of much of the prejudice I’ve come across on this site from contributors (not from Adam).

                • In your post of @ 4:08 AM you write “Who appointed Adam to be the monitor of the press (esp the Guardian)? He can do so if he wants to its a free country (here). He does not need anyone to appoint him;”
                  Yet later in your post of @ 9:25 AM you claim “I have looked into the background of this site and it is interesting and laudable..”

                  If you had, as you claim, ‘looked into the background of this site’ you would be aware of how Adam was appointed, and unlike you it was not a self-appointment.

                  Your claim in the same post ” And we all have a right to free speech. ”
                  Is not only wrong, but childlike in its simplicity and misunderstanding of the realities of life.

    • Imagine that, Dinkle, the poor authentically Palestinian man picking daisies and reciting his peaceful Palestinian poetry to the cruel Israeli who shoves him back without first giving him a full physical examination including a stress test. Anyone would know that this barbaric act would result in death. A case of wonton murder. I wouldn’t be surprised if next they find polonium your diaper.

    • Dinkle, did you know there were more than one Palestinian Pathologist present? Did you know there were Jordanians present (it was conducted in Jordan)?
      Did the NY Times or the Guardian report their opinions, which happen to concur with the Israeli’s? See how much misinformation is missing?

  5. 300,000 and counting dead in Syria, but let’s talk about a convicted murdered of 2 Israeli teenagers having a heart attack because he was too much of a fucking fruitball to finally shut the fuck up and actually accept co-existence as a solution for peace.

    Got it!

      • When any State Department spokesperson finds a situation as Shocking, I tend to believe the spokesperson just got word of it, and/or clearly has no idea what has been happening. Not that I blame them. They are mouth pieces, not all-knowing beings informed of all situations around the planet (but especially in Israel) in real time speed.

        What people need to find Shocking is the overabundance of bullshit news stories coming out of Israel. I, seriously, find it Shocking that anyone gave a crap about this guy while he was living and breathing.

      • Shocked by the death of a convicted terrorist – there is something fundamentally wrong within the Obama administration, or maybe even wicked.

        • Fritz, I quoted the British conservative foreign office.
          You remember, the one headed by David Cameron who voiced his support for Israel on the Knesset stand.

          • Yes, but I prefer to concentrate on the State Department which you mentioned above.
            I can`t repeat the same harsh judgement concerning the Cameron government, fundamentally wrong f.e. The conduct of it when it came to the non-binding vote about Palestinian statehood was fair.

  6. Forgive the rant, but the vast over-coverage of Israel is not SIMPLY a result of antisemitism. I see it is a self-feeding cycle:

    At some point in the past, the media decided that Israel/Palestine is an important news story (for whatever reason) so they sent more journalists there than to other, apparently less important places. More journos have to justify their existence by producing stories about I/P, so the place becomes the focus of more reporting.

    It is therefore perceived as more important, and so more journalists are sent there and so on.

    Add to this the following:

    1. Israel is a place where journalists are free to carry out their profession at very little risk to their personal safety and where they can live in relative comfort, unlike other war zones/places of conflict, so they are happy to be assigned there.

    2. Israel does not censor journalists in any way, so journalists there are free to say what they like about Israel, the IDF etc without fear of consequences. On the other hand, they know that if they criticise the PA, they won’t get access to PA sources in future, and if they criticise Hamas – well, then they are taking their lives in their hands if they ever want to go to Gaza again.

    3. In a connected point, Israel is a free democracy, so journalists have easy access to all information and all points of view, even from sources within Israel who act in direct opposition to the interests of the State. By contrast, trying to get information out of the despotic regimes of say, Syria (even before the current breakdown), Gaza, Iran etc is very difficult, and you only have access to government-approved sources.

    4. We all know that bad news is more interesting than good news, and the more sensational the story the more likely it is to be published. Therefore each journalist/editor is under pressure to produce stories that are dramatic and describe death, discrimination, murder, violence rather than peace, collaboration, coexistence.

    5. It is easier now than it ever has been to fabricate photos and videos, to ascribe photos of one incident to another, and to disseminate said images (for want of a better word, let’s call this Pallywood).

    6. There is so much competition in the media world – there are simply more channels and more hours and column inches to fill than at any time in human history – that it is tempting to cut corners. So, if you, as a journalist in one of the most crowded news-corners of the world receive a potential story from a dubious source (see Pallywood above), you are under pressure to get it published immediately, before having checked your sources, got confirmation or counter-quotes, otherwise some other journo or media outlet will do so first and you lose your scoop.

    6. Add to all this the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, so the journalists/editors get a chance to release their sub-conscious* (see below) or explicit antisemitism, and hey presto – it’s a perfect storm.

    All these factors add up to:

    A. An over-reporting on I/P. This instance is a perfect example. An every-day, completely unremarkable (at least until this bloke died) protest by Palestinians in a tiny backwater (whoever heard of Turmusiya before this?) is attended by multiple reporters, news agencies and photographers.
    B. Exaggeration of how bad the situation is.
    C. An over-reporting on Israeli wrongs as compared to Palestinian wrongs.
    D. An over-reporting on Israeli wrongs as compared to all the wonderful things that goes on there, such as medical, agricultural and technological innovation, charity (not just at home, but e.g. Israeli contributions to global disaster relief) and the very freedom and democracy that brings all this about.
    E. A temptation to not just report the news, but to create it. Much has been said in the past about apparently spontaneous incidents that seem remarkably to occur in full view of dozens of press photographers all of whom have all their equipment set up and a perfect view of the incident, like stonings of cars etc. Would those events have occurred at all if the press had refused to show up?

    * When I say sub-conscious antisemitism, I recognise that we are all human, and all suffer from prejudice at some level. If you grow up in a world which tells you (even in humour) that Jews are too powerful, power-hungry, money-obsessed and elitist (the “chosen people” myth), deep down in places you may not even acknowledge, those become part of your outlook on the world, in the same way white people almost instinctively feel that black people are better at sport, are less intelligent, are more likely to be criminals and are better endowed, or that Arabs are liars, uncivilised, violent and untrustworthy, or that women are bad drivers, image-obsessed, not mechanically minded and incapable of reading maps or managing money.

    N.B. I do not condone any of the views in the above paragraph – I use them as examples of the stereotypes that have pervaded Western society in recent times.

    N.B. 2 I count myself among those burdened by sub-conscious prejudice. I don’t like it, but I acknowledge it is there.

    • I should have added:

      F. An easy route to celebrity/notoriety for any fame-hungry idiot. If you are a student or union leader, a politician or a church minister, what simpler way is there of being talked about than to make a statement/pass a resolution/hold an event condemning Israel? Examples are legion, but I am looking at you, George Galloway (a completely sub-standard politician in every way that matters i.e. his work for his constituents, the impact he has made in Parliament, etc – see here http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10218/george_galloway/bradford_west#numerology for details, who is so egotistical he seeks controversy by any means necessary, including his disgraced Viva Palestina “charity”).

      • That link is amazing. Did you know that Galloway is paid £1,650 for each 1-hour weekly appearance on Press TV? That’s £79,200 each year for 48 hours of work? That’s about 3 times the average salary in the UK – for 1 hour a week?

        • Not to mention the £48,000 per annum he gets for doing 3 hours of work each month by appearing on Al Mayadeen TV (which is allegedly funded by Iran) plus flights to and from Beirut, of course)?

          Or the £6,400 he receives each month for appearing on the Russian state-funded Russia Today? That’s a further 6 hours of work each month.

          In total, he therefore gets paid £204,000 per annum for 13 hours’ work each month – directly or indirectly from the Iranian and Russian governments. That’s almost 3 times what he is paid as an MP (£67,060) by the British government!

          • This from a man who yesterday “put two questions to the foreign secretaryon Britain’s role in this obscene, illegal and barbaric programme by the CIA” in reference to the report on rendition and torture.

            Let’s just say that again. A man who is happy to take £127,000 per annum from Iran (that well known defender of liberty and human rights – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/iran-torture/) preaching about the “obscene, illegal and barbaric” practices of the CIA.

            Hypocrite, much?

            • You’ve written some wonderful posts today, Labenal.

              Some threads are better than others, but today seems like CiFWatch used to be.

              There’s an old saying ‘Money flies to money’. I’ve read that George Galloway regularly receives free cigars from the admiring Castro regime in Cuba.

            • It is a complex subject. ‘Hate, incitement and demagoguery’, even when anti-Semitic, don’t automatically lead to big bucks. British neo-nazis and fascists don’t seem to make much money unless they align with Arab/Muslim causes, which isn’t something most of these racists want to do.

              Some years ago a group of pathetic British neo-nazis went cap in hand to Colonel Gaddafi and returned to England with a stockpile of Gadaffi’s ‘Green Book’, but I don’t think they ever made any money. The IRA on the other hand did very well out of their relationship with Libya, as did a British Trotskyist group called the Workers’ Revolutionary Party (supported by Vanessa and the late Corin Redgrave).

              That’s where the money was for the Workers Revolutionary Party; a party so extreme in its hatred of Israel that it supported the hijacking that ended at Entebbe and condemned the rescue of the surviving hostages (a rescue widely applauded in the West in those far off days). Gaddafi financed their daily newspaper, it was usually laced with plugs for him and his regime and when his rule collapsed so did the Party. (And so did the gravy train at parts of London University.)

              I entirely agree with you, Jeff, there are big bucks out there to be made if you are self-censoring, can write and speak eloquently and are never troubled by a need for facts, support the PA/Hamas, Qatar, Iran, etc., and can successfully, but bogusly, portray yourself as a non-racist, ‘anti-Zionist’ Left-winger.

              • original moshe,
                Thank you for your thoughtful response to my comment.
                One certainly needs to have smarts and tap into the right market. And, of course, there is timing.

    • The capitalist production of news does not explain the ‘ phenomenon’ sufficient, albeit it is a neceessary condition.
      Note that non-Palestinian ‘activists’ were present, too. Anti-zionist ‘Activists’ become ‘journalists’ like at Al Guardian, and there you have a first hint.
      Count the many NGOs, churches, UN agencies, help organisations, left initiatives, communists, sponsered by a lot of states, the EU, the OIC, Muslim League, OPEC, etc. and you get the bigger picture.
      It is a whole self referential, but globalised network which make a living from ‘active antisemitism’ and ‘educating’ the youth ‘natural antisemitism’ as Political/social environment and news context. that is. Take that Dinkle, he is a product of that and due to the epistemological conditions (and others, too) he will never understand that he argues within an antisemitic discourse, repeating mechanically the ideology and notions served.

      • As I said, Fritz. It’s a self-supporting cycle. Where on the cycle it starts – and more importantly, where the cycle can be broken – is a matter which can be argued many ways.

        Of one thing I’m certain: We will never eliminate antisemitism (at least not until the Moshiach comes). We can fight against it – and I believe that CifWatch and others are doing a great job of exposing the hypocrisy and lies printed and spoken about Israel – but that particular shadow does not disappear when you shine a light on it.

        • “It’s a self-supporting cycle. ”
          I’m going to disagree with you a little here. I think it needs a constant fuel source consisting of petrodollars and hot air.

          • Of course any fire needs fuel, but I would say that the petrodollars fund more closely the political bashing of Israel that we see rather than the media bashing. Although of course many media outlets are directly funded by oil-rich (and other) Arab states, so their coverage is likely to be skewed, the majority of MSM in the West are not so funded (at least not directly), so that doesn’t explain the overall pattern.

            Of course, the argument given by our enemies is that the media is controlled by a Jewish cabal. I wonder how we got our hands on all those Qatari-, Saudi- and Iranian-funded “news” outlets?

      • A bigot and a conspiracy theorist as well? Perhaps you should examine the set of epistemological conditions that led you down this blind path.

        • Maybe you are just plain stupid. Homework for you
          1. Male a complete list of all organisations, institutions and states that support in one form or another the Palestinian cause.
          2. Make a complete list of all insitutions, organsiations and states supporting the Palestinian cause who have representative offices or officers in Israel; Gaza and WJL.
          3. Learn the difference between network and conspiracy by heart.
          4. Cite the boycott regulations of OIC, Arab League, the former communist bloc, the OPEC, and of those specific Western states in the 70 following the Yom Kippur war. Cite the states who bow to the boycott threat in the 70, took petrodollars and terminated diplomatic ties with Israel.

          But as you are so stupid to believe antisemitsm is just a fiction, to come here to teach Jews about the objectivitiy and fairness of Al Guardian I doubt that you are able to fulfill the tasks. Besides that you as conspiracy nerd cannot distinguish between the tasks of the CIA and the FBI.
          http://cifwatch.com/2014/12/10/guardianap-omits-minor-detail-about-alleged-palestinian-plot-to-kill-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-180669